Counterfeit Detection #1

I just had a class recently an I'll be sharing some of the things I learned. Adjectives like "fatty," "mushy," "rounded," and "indistinct" or not sharp were used to describe one of the commonly seen characteristics of counterfeits.

I've posted images of two gold dollars I saw. The instructor was a real joker. Notice the difference in the sharpness of the design.
Fist coin:



Second coin:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sooo...the second coin is authentic when compared to the first? the second coin looks sharper than the top coin.

 

The 1887 is authentic. The 1854 is not.

 

Do the denticles have anything to do with real vs fake? Top coin looks normal 2nd coin looks mushy.

 

The 1887 is a typical strike for the year. The denticles on the 1854 are spread out too far and very weak. Denticles shouldnt look like that.

 

Other way around.

 

I learned that the shape and strength of denticals around the rim of small gold coins are not a reliable factor concerning C/F detection. However, the rims are an important place to look for tool marks. Note: tool marks can be found on genuine specimens also. I have some images from class.

 

Tool Marks on another very crude fake.

 

Tool marks can be more misleading than useful for identifying counterfeits of 19th century and older coins.

 

Thank you for bringing that up! Just about any characteristic on a coin can be misleading to the uninformed. For example, those folks often think a genuine coin with a few raised pimples due to a rusty die is a counterfeit!

While looking closely at coins, I've learned that any characteristic that can be found on a counterfeit coin (tool marks in this case) can also be found on a genuine coin. Furthermore, the reverse is true! Professional authenticators and informed collectors such as yourself know this and I expect that is why you posted the comment.

If I understand your post correctly, you imply that a large number of 19th Century coins exhibit tool marks and thus may be thought to be counterfeits. I have not found that to be the case. What I have found is that these die defects (tool marks) are more common on counterfeit coins of any era by a very, very wide margin.

Perhaps you could show us some images of a few 19th Century coins with tool marks. One more thing which you know but others here may not, is that in recent times (1980's to today), tool marks are rarely seen on any coins except for the poorest made fakes and least deceptive junk!

 

You're a member since 2010.
When did you start making observations of coin dies to be so knowledgeable of which are fakes? You neglected to include your year of birth in your profile.
I joined a year before you, finding CT online 40 years after doing my Error coin dies observations research.
I don't claim to know enough, but think you might have missed a few nuances.

 

@UniqueDesigns

When I was twenty-three. I collect Social Security now.

Sorry, I don't know what this means: "I don't claim to know enough, but think you might have missed a few nuances."

If you are saying I don't know everything about counterfeits, you are correct.

PS Do you have any "nuances" to add concerning the coins I've posted?

 

UniqueDesigns, posted: "I don't claim to know enough, but think you might have missed a few nuances."

OK guys, the jig is up. @UniqueDesigns is going to blow my cover. You are going to hate me for this...but I gave you a clue in the beginning. The instructor in the class is a troll! He likes to keep the students on their toes so...

Perhaps this is the nuance - Both coins are counterfeit. The first is a type seen around the 1970's. It was gold but a low alloy. These were so poorly made that some thought they were cast counterfeits! Actually, they were among some of the first die struck examples made in the middle east.

The second is a great improvement seen by the late 1970's and early 1980's. Much sharper and correct alloy of gold. Still, compared to the fakes being made today this is coin would be easily detected by a professional authenticator and major gold dealers. Still, most collectors would think it was genuine.

More later. My college team is on TV.

 

So, that Answer gives you the right/authority to DELETE my reply to Insider???
I was looking for realistic answers and YOU took Away my Carefully described reply.
Apparently, Insider has confessed to being 'Trolled' and Now I have no reply to get those Thoughts from about MY Observations.
Please put my reply back up. I spent an hour thoughtfully composing it.
When my Original Reply is reinstated, feel free to delete this one.

 

Apparently, my thoughtful observations of your admittedly Misleading picts were closer to reality than the Mod.-GDJMSP's reasons for being gunhoe deleting my reply to you.

WTH

 

Peter,

What's up with this moderator?

He DELETED my hours long thoughtfully composed reply to Insiders' OP about 'his' Counterfeit Detected #1 thread.

Turns out I WAS RIGHT as my observations of his 2 posted picts are concerned, IF they were as Insider Claimed 1 Genuine and 1 Fake gold set of coins.

I wanted answers to my observations and this Mod REMOVED my post.

I'd like it replaced.

If not, I'll be leaving this sight as your Mod thinks HE knows MORE than those who BOTHER to post a reply.

Why would I want to CONTRIBUTE to THAT kind of reception???

I do not take hours to compose thoughtful replies, expecting that my effort will realize No Thoughtful Replies.

I do Not care whether Insider's OP's was WRONG from the outset.

My contributions are Very Valuable to me.

 

UniqueDesigns, posted: "Apparently, my thoughtful observations of your admittedly Misleading picts were closer to reality than the Mod.-GDJMSP's reasons for being gunhoe deleting my reply to you."

It is halftime.

First of all, I never saw anything you posted except the "nuance" (??) thing that I replied to. I note that you did not answer my question. If the deleted post you refer to was your reply, I'm very thankful that it was deleted before I saw it because if it was out-of-bounds, my reply to you would have had me BANNED FOR SURE!

Earlier, I PM'ed a poster not to spill the beans. It's too bad you didn't post what you thought rather than that "nuance" crap. BTW, I gave you the chance to tell everyone what I believed you might be hinting at. Alas, now I'll never know if you knew both coins were counterfeits even though I gave you the credit in my post.

Game back on, team losing, foul mood! I'll get over it.

More to post about the coins later.

 

Turns out you were incorrect: "Turns out I WAS RIGHT as my observations of his 2 posted picts are concerned, IF they were as Insider Claimed 1 Genuine and 1 Fake gold set of coins."

PS [edit ] ! Please show anyplace in my post where I said one of the coins was genuine!

You are forgiven. Now I should be delighted if you told all of us what you saw on the fakes I posted. Sometimes, four eyes are better than two.